COBOL "non-myth" confirmed - Index and subscripts (MF on Windows)
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Help with Tcal
Next: COBOL Error Handling (was: What MF says about ROUNDED(was:Cobol Myth Busters
From: donald tees on 20 Sep 2007 08:18 Pete Dashwood wrote: > > I think he likes to rattle cages and rock boats. I don't always agree with > HOW he does this, but I respect his right to do so in an unmoderated forum, > and it can be beneficial for all of us if it makes people re-evaluate what > "everybody knows" >> People fight back against rudeness in different ways. I just back out of >> the conversation, unless I am really pissed off. You try to reconcile and >> work around it. Richard is rude back, Bill becomes very precise, etc. >> I agree, completely. However, even if everyone has a right to be rude, they do not have a right to courtesy back. Nor do they have a right to attempted reasonable discourse. Somebody starts deliberately rocking *my* boat, I just toss them overboard. They can either act in a civilized manner, or swim alone. A boat requires an appreciation of unspoken co-operation to stay afloat. That is why navies are so formally correct. Donald
From: donald tees on 20 Sep 2007 08:22 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article <X9-dnYZshvgMLGzbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d(a)golden.net>, > donald tees <donaldtees(a)execulink.com> wrote: >> Howard Brazee wrote: > > [snip] > >>> I have a program that looks to see what campus is running that >>> program. If it is one of the big campuses, it does an area sweep, if >>> it's one of the small campuses, it walks the set. This was >>> determined by testing the speeds of the two choices. >> Closer to what I mean. Two completely different methodologies, >> depending on requirements. > > This is one of the reasons I've coded > > READ INFILE > AT END SET NO-MORE-INPUT TO TRUE > NOT AT END > ADD 1 TO LOOKUP-TBL-ENTRY-NO > IF LOOKUP-TBL-ENTRY-NO > MAX-TBL-ENTRIES-ALLOWED > MOVE 'LOOKUP TABLE EXCEEDS MAX ENTRIES - CALL PROGAMMING' > TO WS-ABEND-REASON > GO TO ABEND-RTN > ELSE > MOVE INREC TO LOOKUP-TBL-ENTRY (LOOKUP-TBL-ENTRY-NO) > END-IF > END-READ > > ... or reasonable facsimiles thereof. When data volume goes a certain > amount beyond program design then it's time to have a coder look at it... > if only to say 'Oh, we're not limited to 32K tables any more, let's bump > this baby up a few!'. > > DD Probably a good example for two reasons ... it shows a "semi-micro" example that *is* within a program, yet is still an algorithmic difference. I think most such differences, though, take place well before you get into the middle of a single program. They take place at the design level. Donald
From: donald tees on 20 Sep 2007 08:24 Roger While wrote: > > This is getting confusing. I am also a RW :-) > > Roger > > Sorry Roger. ;<) Donald
From: Howard Brazee on 20 Sep 2007 10:03 On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:51:48 -0500, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >What an odd thing to say. I advocate modern Cobol; legacy coders have 'standards' >restricting their victims to 1970s style Cobol. We have such standards which say nothing about EVALUATE, reference modification, and END-IFs. So I am not restricted from using these.
From: Anonymous on 20 Sep 2007 10:13
In article <LJidnU64f4e7-2_bnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d(a)golden.net>, donald tees <donaldtees(a)execulink.com> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: [snip] >> This is one of the reasons I've coded [snip] >> ... or reasonable facsimiles thereof. When data volume goes a certain >> amount beyond program design then it's time to have a coder look at it... >> if only to say 'Oh, we're not limited to 32K tables any more, let's bump >> this baby up a few!'. > >Probably a good example for two reasons ... it shows a "semi-micro" >example that *is* within a program, yet is still an algorithmic difference. > >I think most such differences, though, take place well before you get >into the middle of a single program. They take place at the design level. There's the rub, Mr Tees... at 'design level' one of my questions (if I'm on-site for it or allowed to ask any) is 'what is the expected data flow?'; I've heard - from Corner-Office Idiots, usually - 'That's a goooood question... why do you think that is important?' and had to explain that a system is designed using different criteria depending on the amount of data running through it, just as one chooses a vehicle using different criteria depending on the amount of stuff one wishes to move around in it. If the system gets used then the amount of data going through it may increase... and, similarly to a vehicle, one will have to decide at which point one puts aside the old three-speed Humber with handlebar-basket - which was most suitable for moving one'sself around during one's earlier years - and replaces it with a vehicle which can carry one'sself, one's spouse and (n) children... perhaps a motorscooter (which in some places, eg Southeast Asian countries, are made to carry all that and more), perhaps an automobile of some sort, perhaps a van, etc. DD |